This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

At 2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

I feel that by giving that sort of legal rights to the unborn child you would be giving the anti-choicers too much ammunition.

At 2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

I feel that by giving that sort of legal rights to the unborn child you would be giving the anti-choicers too much ammunition.

Perhaps, but it's a completely avoidable thing that the mother brought onto herself and her unborn child. Plus the effects are irreversible and can greatly affect a person's quality of life.

At 2/22/2011 5:07:50 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:This is something I have been thinking about due to a conversation with Juvanya, about how children can be born with serious birth defects due to exposure to alcohol, and the chemicals in cigarettes if it's the mother smoking. This may be the problem I have(I seem to have a few of the symptoms).

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.

I feel that by giving that sort of legal rights to the unborn child you would be giving the anti-choicers too much ammunition.

Perhaps, but it's a completely avoidable thing that the mother brought onto herself and her unborn child. Plus the effects are irreversible and can greatly affect a person's quality of life.

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

I don't really like the term "Anti-choice" being a Pro-lifer myself, but really that has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. I regard this as a serious issue in itself apart from abortion. There are so many children each year born with disabilities and many of them could have been preventable.

I don't think you can compare abortion to impairing a baby that you know will be born and will have to live through the life damaging effects. An aborted fetus doesn't suffer any life-long effects because it is never born to begin with, thus there is no problem.

So, I certainly would be in favor of laws prohibiting mothers from damaging their baby in the womb that will be born, but not in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

I don't really like the term "Anti-choice" being a Pro-lifer myself, but really that has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. I regard this as a serious issue in itself apart from abortion. There are so many children each year born with disabilities and many of them could have been preventable.

OK. Your stand point is consistent. From your POV, I would agree that mothers should be held legally responsible.However, you can't seperate the two issues. In order to make the mothers responsible it would require giving rights to the fetus which would prevent abortion being legal.

At 2/22/2011 5:33:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:I don't think you can compare abortion to impairing a baby that you know will be born and will have to live through the life damaging effects. An aborted fetus doesn't suffer any life-long effects because it is never born to begin with, thus there is no problem.

So, I certainly would be in favor of laws prohibiting mothers from damaging their baby in the womb that will be born, but not in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.

It is issue of the legal rights. If the baby has none, damages done to it, from aborting it, or smoking whilst pregnant, cannot be legally punished.

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.:

I have a strong suspicion that my mother smoked when I was in the womb. Of course, that was in the 1970's and this was normal back then. It really wasn't until the 80's that cigarette smoking was investigated and by the 1990's became incontrovertibly bad.

So I would say that the timing really depends on the situation. Anywhere past, say, the 1990 mark has no excuse.

Hmm... Re-read what you put and but change smoking to "abortions". Seems like it justifies anti-choice, which isn't really an acceptable outcome.

I don't really like the term "Anti-choice" being a Pro-lifer myself, but really that has nothing to do with my stance on this issue. I regard this as a serious issue in itself apart from abortion. There are so many children each year born with disabilities and many of them could have been preventable.

At 2/22/2011 5:33:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:I don't think you can compare abortion to impairing a baby that you know will be born and will have to live through the life damaging effects. An aborted fetus doesn't suffer any life-long effects because it is never born to begin with, thus there is no problem.

So, I certainly would be in favor of laws prohibiting mothers from damaging their baby in the womb that will be born, but not in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.:

I have a strong suspicion that my mother smoked when I was in the womb. Of course, that was in the 1970's and this was normal back then. It really wasn't until the 80's that cigarette smoking was investigated and by the 1990's became incontrovertibly bad.

So I would say that the timing really depends on the situation. Anywhere past, say, the 1990 mark has no excuse.

Well that's mainly what I'm talking about, now. I can't really speak for previous to the 1990's, but we have done enough research by now to know that the chemicals in alcohol and cigarettes can impair an unborn child. With that said, it should be a punishable offense.

Anyway, should mothers who drink or smoke during pregnancy be subject to legal action if their child is born with defects? It is entirely the mother's doing, choosing to ingest harmful chemicals during the stages of fetal development.:

I have a strong suspicion that my mother smoked when I was in the womb. Of course, that was in the 1970's and this was normal back then. It really wasn't until the 80's that cigarette smoking was investigated and by the 1990's became incontrovertibly bad.

So I would say that the timing really depends on the situation. Anywhere past, say, the 1990 mark has no excuse.

Well that's mainly what I'm talking about, now. I can't really speak for previous to the 1990's, but we have done enough research by now to know that the chemicals in alcohol and cigarettes can impair an unborn child. With that said, it should be a punishable offense.

To legally punish someone for causing harm to a being, that being must have legal rights to prevent harm. Unborn babies do not. If you were to change the law to give them legal rights, abortion would become untenable.It is a fairly douche-y thing for the mother to do, but I don't believe it should be punishable by law.

To legally punish someone for causing harm to a being, that being must have legal rights to prevent harm. Unborn babies do not. If you were to change the law to give them legal rights, abortion would become untenable.It is a fairly douche-y thing for the mother to do, but I don't believe it should be punishable by law.

It will have rights once it's born. In fact, children are especially vulnerable so are subject to special rights.

To legally punish someone for causing harm to a being, that being must have legal rights to prevent harm. Unborn babies do not. If you were to change the law to give them legal rights, abortion would become untenable.It is a fairly douche-y thing for the mother to do, but I don't believe it should be punishable by law.

It will have rights once it's born. In fact, children are especially vulnerable so are subject to special rights.

You can't retro-actively apply rights.* The damage was done before birth, when it did not have rights.

*an example being the abolition of slavery. People who had owned slaves were not prosecuted for actions done to the slaves whilst the slaves did not have the right to freedom